Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.

The 500 million USD project by DRDO (Defence Research Devolepment Organisation), which envisages mounting an Indian system on a Brazilian Embraer aircraft, has not found much favour with the IAF, as the jet does not have a flight endurance of 10 hours and cannot cruise at altitudes above 40,000 feet.

IAF officials said the new system will only have a range of 300 km and a surveillance arc of only 240 degrees. The force wants the DRDO project, whose delivery schedule has already slipped from 2012 to 2016, to be turned into an â€œairborne battlefield surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance systemâ€

The 500 million USD project by DRDO (Defence Research Devolepment Organisation), which envisages mounting an Indian system on a Brazilian Embraer aircraft, has not found much favour with the IAF, as the jet does not have a flight endurance of 10 hours and cannot cruise at altitudes above 40,000 feet.

IAF officials said the new system will only have a range of 300 km and a surveillance arc of only 240 degrees. The force wants the DRDO project, whose delivery schedule has already slipped from 2012 to 2016, to be turned into an â€œairborne battlefield surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance systemâ€

Lockheed Martin's plan to switch airframes for the U.S. Army's Aerial Common Sensor program will increase the price of development by roughly $400 million, nearly 50%, prompting questions about the ACS' future, according to government and industry sources.

The swelling cost is prompting some in the Pentagon to explore the impact of terminating the project and either re-competing the work or redistributing the requirements to other existing and planned platforms. Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin's former ACS rival, Northrop Grumman, is floating plans to upgrade the Guardrail intelligence fleet in lieu of the Army shouldering the additional ACS cost, prompting questions of an ACS termination.

Lockheed Martin won the $879-million contract only a year ago to develop the ACS, which will replace the Army's Aerial Reconnaissance Low and Guardrail aircraft and collect signals intelligence. Since then, however, the company discovered that the aircraft it proposed to carry the system--Embraer's ERJ 145--is far too small, triggering a new platform competition.

Pentagon and industry sources also expect a delay of 1-2 years in the program's schedule, pushing the first deliveries of five aircraft to the Army as late as Fiscal 2012 and forcing the service to use its dwindling Guardrail fleet longer than planned. Lockheed Martin has begun briefing Pentagon and Army officials on these and other issues related to the platform change.

Industry and government sources say the easiest approach for Lockheed Martin and the Army would be the selection of the Embraer 190, which can carry nearly twice the payload of the ERJ 145. That aircraft or one in the same class would boost the development cost to roughly $1.2 billion.

Lockheed Martin says it has not decided on a new platform and declined to discuss cost estimates for various candidates. The company is looking at a variety of aircraft, including the Gulfstream 550 and Boeing 737.

Several factors point to the Embraer 190 as the likely choice for the new platform. Lockheed Martin and Embraer signed a memorandum of agreement designating Embraer as the 145 supplier for ACS. The companies have not signed a contract yet, says Lockheed Martin spokesman Keith Mordoff. So, Lockheed Martin would be able to choose an aircraft other than the 190. However, the team has already worked together for a year, and Lockheed Martin may want to capitalize on that existing arrangement; the two also have a history of joint work on a number of programs.

Embraer will be in a pinch if its 190 is not selected. With Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in attendance, the company broke ground last year on a new manufacturing facility in Jacksonville. It would allow the company to produce the ERJ 145 on U.S. soil, satisfying "Buy American" rules. The facility is to be the company's "base of operations" for its move into the U.S. defense and homeland security market, according to Embraer spokesman Doug Oliver.

Embraer has already begun building some U.S. political clout. Jacksonville Airport Authority spokesman Michael Stewart says the first phase of the manufacturing facility project includes construction of a building, offices and taxiways at a cost of $6.5 million. Stewart says Embraer and the airport authority are picking up the bill together. Embraer will then lease the space from the airport authority. However, the arrangement does give the Brazilian company an out if it does not receive the Army work, Stewart says. The deal was signed last year before the Lockheed Martin-led team was tapped for ACS.

The facility will use a portion of the space once occupied by Naval Air Station Cecil Field, which was closed in 1999.

The district of Rep. Ander Crenshaw (R-Fla.), a member of the House Appropriations and Budget committees, borders the facility. And the wrangling over a new platform has gotten his attention. "While we hold the Embraer 190 platform in high regard, we will continue to support Lockheed Martin as they evaluate all available options," he says.

In the meantime, the finger-pointing has begun in Washington as officials try to figure out what went wrong so early in the program and whether the Army's approach will solve its problems. Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin's rival for the contract, has not announced any plans to protest the Army's decision not to conduct a new competition for the entire system, although company officials say they are keeping their options open.

The stakes are high. Total program cost is estimated at nearly $8 billion for the Army's requirement of 38 aircraft. The Navy also is considering the purchase of 19 ACS aircraft for its signals intelligence needs.

Lockheed Martin and the Army both say they thought the ERJ 145 was sufficient when the contract was awarded. The team touted "system growth potential" as one of the key attributes of its proposal. Northrop Grumman proposed the Gulfstream 450 during the competition, which would also be too small.

A switch to an Embraer 190 or aircraft of similar size is a major change. The 190 is 20 ft. longer and 30 ft. wider than the ERJ 145. The larger aircraft was designed to carry about twice as many passengers as the 145's 50-seat configuration. Army Communications and Electronics Command spokesman Tim Rider says the service is taking into consideration the additional ramp space and hangar facilities needed to accommodate a larger aircraft.

Industry and government sources cite a lack of upfront risk-reduction work on the integration tasks associated with ACS as a major cause of the mistake. The pre-development phase lasted about 15 months.

Mission equipment weight has grown significantly, forcing the change. Among the top weight drivers is a miscalculation of the amount of cable needed to connect the onboard equipment. Additionally, the power provided by the smaller Embraer is insufficient to handle the requirements of simultaneously operating onboard sensors, computers and related equipment, according to a Pentagon source. The pre-development risk-reduction phase focused more on the sensor than on the integration task, contributing to these recently discovered integration problems, the source says.

The Army and Lockheed Martin also underestimated the strength and weight of supports needed to house the ACS' electronic boxes, and they are redesigning those items, the Pentagon official says.

The weight dilemma is not a result of any additional requirements, Rider says. Army officials are also emphasizing that they want Lockheed Martin to spearhead finding a new platform. Lockheed Martin officials say their decision will be made in consultation with the Army. The Pentagon source says this hands-off approach could invite more risk into the program by allowing a contractor--whose bottom line is profitability--to choose the aircraft. In the past, with Airborne Reconnaissance Low and Guardrail, the Army has chosen its airframe and then contracted out work on the sensors.

Although some defense analysts suggest the Navy may back out of ACS in favor of a sigint version of the Boeing-led Multi-mission Maritime Aircraft (MMA), the Pentagon source disagrees. The Navy will not have to shoulder the additional development cost, the source says, and the service will reap the benefits of additional scrutiny put on the program.

Edward Bair, the Army's program executive officer for intelligence, electronic warfare and sensors, has asked the Navy to conduct an independent review of the ACS decision.

MEANWHILE, Northrop Grumman, prime contractor on the legacy Guardrail system, is offering a proposal to upgrade the existing Guardrail aircraft for the Army, possibly handling a portion of the ACS requirement without forcing the Army to swallow the additional cost of a platform shift. This proposal is prompting the Defense Dept. to look at canceling ACS in favor of spreading its requirements to upgraded legacy platforms as well as those in development, such as the Navy's MMA and Army's Extended-Range/Multi-Purpose UAV.

Officials at the Pentagon are unsure how the Army will be able to fund the additional development cost. The services will submit their budget plans for Fiscal 2007 early next month to the Defense Dept.'s civilian leadership. Added funding for ACS would have to come from the Army's already strained budget. The Fiscal 2007 budget is due to Congress in February.

Rider says Lockheed Martin's first award fee milestone on the ACS development contract passed Aug. 1, and Army officials are now assessing how much the contractor will earn from its performance to date.

The Pentagon's acquisition system is under heavy scrutiny by Congress owing to numerous cost overruns and schedule slips. For example, the Space-Based Infrared Sensor High project--also developed by a Lockheed Martin-led team--has incurred five cost overruns since 2001. The price has jumped from $4 billion to more than $10 billion. Army officials do not want their ACS problems to become entangled in the Pentagon's larger acquisition troubles following the failed Boeing tanker lease proposal, which is still under investigation.

Boeing is polishing the design of an EP-3-replacement signals intelligence aircraft for use by the U.S. Navy and possibly for the export market.

Moreover, the airframe builder believes the new airplane (a derivative of the P-8A multimission maritime aircraft) could appeal across service lines, perhaps to the U.S. Air Force, which some Pentagon critics contend is not focusing on keeping its lead in state-of-the-art intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) systems. For example, two budget-cutting victims are expected to be the E-10 multi-sensor command and control aircraft--with its revolutionary MP-RTIP radar--and the Joint Unmanned Combat Aircraft System, which was to play a key role in electronic attack.

Boeing's announcement is also likely to trigger other companies to propose offerings. Raytheon has designed and built Britain's Astor ground surveillance aircraft from Bombardier's Global Express. Their investment could be transferred to a sigint version of the aircraft. Also, Northrop Grumman designed versions of the General Dynamics Gulfstream for an Israeli sigint aircraft and the initial competition for the Aerial Common Sensor (ACS).

The 737-derivative sigint aircraft is being presented in response to the death of the Army/Navy ACS contract, a product of Lockheed Martin. Several Pentagon and aerospace industry officials say they believe the answer to disparate service requirements is a common sigint and communications system that can be adapted to a wide range of manned and unmanned aircraft.

Boeing planners object, however, saying a common sensor package will push military users back to a single aircraft. They also tout a worldwide support system for 5,400 commercial 737s that would help keep down the military's inventories and maintenance costs.

"You put together a common architecture, communications suite and sensor packages and you're going to drive yourself toward a common air vehicle, otherwise you're going to pay developmental costs three times and add three types . . . to the inventory," says Tim Norgart, director of Boeing's P-8A business development. [In reality] we're seeing a neck-down of types. Today's budgets are going to drive [the Pentagon] back to joint solutions."

Forward of that is the EO/IR sensor. Boeing's intial concept is for a 14-person mission crew, but the aircraft's size allows for expansion to 25 workstations without crowding

While Boeing's concept targets the Navy, it is not being pitched narrowly as a tactical system like the EP-3. The aircraft's capability could be expanded to rival those of the Air Force's RC-135 Rivet Joint. The company's planners also believe there is an international market for perhaps a couple of dozen of these medium-size signals intelligence aircraft.

So far, however, "the Air Force has not been very proactive in taking the leadership role it could claim in advancing the state-of-the-art for ISR," says a senior intelligence specialist. "Austere budgets make the common theme very popular, but it's been tried several times before and there are huge issues once you try to define common.

"But [the core problem] is not about the technology," he says. "Where we need to see change is in the areas of roles and missions. National [intelligence] organizations need to embrace the services as partners rather than subordinates--or worse, unqualified rubes that only interfere with the national [agencies'] prowess. There also needs to be theater-level implementation of orchestrated instead of scheduled ISR coverage as well as training and documentation on how to employ these remarkable new tools."

While the large-scale, inter-service, inter-agency battles play out, Boeing wants to position itself with a new system that can be tailored to varied needs.

Playing off the basic P-8A Multimission Maritime Aircraft (MMA) (a 737-800 with a longer 737-900 wing), Boeing officials say they will already have a hot production line, an existing contractor logistics support system leveraged off the commercial line, a proven open electronic architecture and common crew workstations that can be adapted to virtually any surveillance task. MMA is to make its first flight in 2009 and have its first operational unit in 2013. Production could then pick up with the sigint aircraft in time to meet the end of the EP-3's flying life.

To ensure the viability of the current EP-3 fleet, the Navy will expand the service-life extension program by around seven aircraft. Each P-3 and EP-3 is being inspected to determine whether it needs the structural enhancement kit through 2011. Under the Joint Airborne Sigint Architecture Modernization Common Configuration Program, electronic obsolescence problems are being addressed as well. The sensor suite is being upgraded to make sure it remains operationally useful through 2017, a Navy official says. Around that time, the remaining EP-3 is expected to reach the end of its service life.

The only significant change to the sigint version of the MMA design will be the addition of a small canoe under the present site of the aft weapons bay to house a series of rotating sigint antennas under a single protective dome. But there is no structural strengthening of the aircraft required because it was already done when the weapons bays for MMA were put in, say Boeing officials.

Israel made similar modifications to a Boeing 737 and employed it as the centerpiece of an operation that tracked and detained the Karine A, a vessel carrying 50 tons of weapons reportedly bound for Palestinian militias in 2002.

Perhaps most intriguing, the large size of the aircraft will offer better antenna separation and longer electronic baselines (nose to tail, tail to wingtip, wingtip to nose). That means the aircraft would be capable of producing more accurate locations and ranges of enemy electronic emitters. A long baseline also means the ability to gather much lower-frequency signals that smaller tactical aircraft use for battlefield sigint. Advanced data links, including satellite communications, would ensure network-centric capabilities for rapid targeting.Boeing envisions a 737-800-based signals-intelligence aircraft with rows of antennas top and bottom, including an array of spinners in an under-fuselage canoeCredit: BOEING

"We would use the 1.9 million lines of code and the basic open architecture of MMA and then bring in the sigint packages on top of that," Norgart says. "Each sensor package has software code associated with it that runs [on the basic architecture] like an application. We have demonstrated that capability--to roll on a different radar and an additional sensor without writing any more lines of code and without even shutting the system down." Any operator can sit down at any workstation and "tell the system what data you want to see and everything works through the core architecture," he says.

In planning for the new sigint aircraft, Boeing officials are setting the system up for the next-generation capability upgrades to the EP-3. It adds more automation, databases and integration to electronic intelligence-gathering.

While not part of Boeing's presentation, various aerospace and defense industry planners are looking at the advantages of equipping the sigint aircraft with an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, network-centric collaborative targeting (NCCT) and Suter Program products. Roughly, that means an aircraft so equipped could precisely locate and identify enemy emitters with NCCT, electronically jam signals with the AESA and invade communications networks with packages of algorithms for intelligence-gathering. In fact, adding AESA is considered a key upgrade to making the aircraft a sigint platform.

The initial sigint aircraft's design increases the mission crew to 14 positions, well beyond the five for an MMA. However, Boeing officials said that if requirements demand, they can increase the mission crew capacity to 24-25 positions without crowding.

To carry the sigint equipment, designers would take out the MMA's sonobuoy system, anti-submarine warfare rotary launchers and seal the aft weapons bay to hold additional antennas and electronic equipment. Added to the payload would be more communications and the ability to move large files of data faster and with more agility.

The MMA is designed to carry 12,000 lb. of ordnance, a payload that can be rededicated to additional electronics. Moreover, the sigint aircraft will have four positions for wing pylons that could carry variants of the miniature air-launched decoy missile that can be fitted with electronic emitters as a standoff jamming device. Also in the works are disposable unmanned aircraft that can be launched from manned aircraft to get very close to a foe. In particular, the Pentagon is interested in low-power, wireless communications networks favored by insurgents for command and control and triggering improvised explosive devices. So far, two 180-kva. generators on the engines and a 90-kva. auxiliary power unit provide electrical power. The airframe is designed to operate from 200-41,000 ft.

A new Pentagon study, that Boeing officials say will last at least six months and maybe a year, is expected to reassess all the ISR requirements.

I think this news from Deccan Herald is an idea that is being floated to get more orders for Phalcon. Personally I support more orders for Phalcons.

While it is indeed a question why IAF-DRDO has not gone in for heavier aircraft for Indian AWACS. One reason could be as usual of penny pinching and small babu thinking and lack of confidence in what is Indian.

The other reason can be of practical nature. E145 is the only platform which is available in which antenna is mounted high and has been configured for AWACS so that would save lot of time for testing the platform. The engines of this plane are in rear which would prevent/reduce inteference with radar beam when they are scanning.

Choosing any other platfrom would raise the costs in time and testing for 3 planes by upto US$ 100million or so.

I am a great supporter of "adequate". So I think India should order 3 more phalcons, Indian AEW going on to heavier MTA based platform over time and MTA based JSTAT-ASTOR system

Raj Malhotra; Tatha-astu.
You spoke my sentiments. I do believe that Deccan Herald has traits of a traitor. In the article the first part is official press release the second part is DDM/editor's own malicious addition.

Arun_S wrote:Raj Malhotra; Tatha-astu. You spoke my sentiments. I do believe that Deccan Herald has traits of a traitor. In the article the first part is official press release the second part is DDM/editor's own malicious addition.

actually the second part of the article was on the similar lines of a newspiece that circulated 3-4months ago in ToI.. i think the DeccanHerald guy simply ripped it off (Bedi wrote the original, I think).. nothing more, nothing less.. CtrlC, CtrlV.

Thats why I made it a specific question to ask at AI07 and CABS people very explicitly told that IAF was in loop with the 240deg coverage -- IAF very well knows this and has given the green signal..

bcoz the CABS AEWC is not a elixir for all our AEWC needs.. it is very much being positioned as a subsidiary system for Phalcons to fill in the required gaps.. it will act more as a border surveillance role.. Reg the endurance -- that should not be too much of an issue as the a/c is fitted out for AAR... first of all the system will be cheaper solution, fill in the vital gaps (3 or 6 Phalcons cannot cover the whole area) and will be the realisation of indigenous capability which will be the springboard for further development & self-reliance..

Arun, that is a verbatim copy paste from guess where...Force an article written by good old Prasun Sengupta...full of utter BS..he also wrote that the CABs radar is a derivative of the Rajendra!

A$$ does not know anything other than copy pasting brochures for impressive sounding hogwash. But for once he did not drag Israel or Russia into the picture as secret colloborators.

I can testify that the CABS AEW&C is actually acc. to AHQ specs, performance etc. acc to the person I referred to. The performance was driven by cost considerations & need to supplement the Phalcon not supplant it. AHQ wanted decent performance in a cost effective manner, DRDO wanted self reliance in airborne radars, so the project was born.

Splendid as always. One suggestion: could you please make the article references ("Recommended for Further Reading") into clickable links since all of them are URLs? Also some of them are broken; e..g, http://users.senet.com.au/~wingman/awacs.html.

1. Each time 120deg coverage. A/c turns around for 120deg from other side.1280 modules switched over from one side to the other as required with a switching mech 2. 360deg coverage possible, but restricted only by payload constraints â€“ IAF asked for a lot of systems. Including all that meant only this much could be put into arrays. If 360deg coverage required â€“ we can put some antennas at front and back. 3. 65*8*160 watt peak power, 0.07*peakpower = AvgPower (7% duty cycle)

Splendid as always. One suggestion: could you please make the article references ("Recommended for Further Reading") into clickable links since all of them are URLs? Also some of them are broken; e..g, http://users.senet.com.au/~wingman/awacs.html.

Thanks. They are now links. I'm leaving the wingman link in case it comes back online.

The issue is what is the current and future philosophy that an armed force adopts. For instance the Italians would like (and I think they are getting there) to make ANY asset that is in use a "node" in a network. So, if a tanker takes to the sky or a transport takes to the sky, it automatically joins a network. If a tank leaves its base, it too becomes a node.

So too the US has decided on consolidating their *INT assets. They are trying to use just one or at most two models, thus a model will perform multiple functions (new USN helos are a good example).

Modularity is the key. And, with miniaturization they are starting to see a lot of savings in what they can load onto an asset.

Vick: When the question was posed I was expecting something like that. But after looking at the photo, it appears not. First there is nothing evidence it can become long. VLF for subs are generally extended out from spool (from a pod) to full length of many many hundreds of meters (I am told few kilometer(s)). If at all I would expect it come off the bottom of the tail.

OTOH the small wire length visible is barely enough for mid to higher end of HF. Pretty close to my favorite 7.5 MHz HF channel.

Vick wrote:Harry, good stuff. Any possibility of doing one of the Phalcon?

So, the IAF is really interested in 5 more Phalcons?

I don't know what the final Phalcon will look like?

The IAF will probably order 5 more Phalcon (they should) and there will probably be a DDM article blaming the delay in DRDO's project etc etc

IMO, it requires at least 3 Phalcons to provide 24hr coverage of one battlespace with two on 8-12 hour shifts and one as reserve. Four would be ideal though. So at least another 3 Phalcons would be needed to fight in more than one battlespace.

But since the Phalcons are expensive, the DRDO's cheaper smaller (but less capable) alternative is a viable option to make up the required numbers in the long run.

Aditya G wrote:Can we not operate more conventional AEW aircraft from land? Why the E-2 which is especially designed for USN carriers?

If we ever have to buy an American system it should be based on C-130J (yes C-130 has a AEW version as well)

C-130 isn't ideal as an AEW platform. There are good reasons why passenger aircraft are usually chosen as the basis for AEW. Pressurised, so they can fly higher, greater crew comfort (means more effective crew on on long patrols), greater endurance, lower fuel consumption. The only advantage I can think of for a tactical transport such as the C-130 is its short & rough field performance, & if you're basing your AEW aircraft so far forward that matters, you're probably basing them in the wrong place.

Putting the radar & systems of an E-2 on a larger airframe, e.g. a Boeing 737 or A320 family aircraft, would probably produce a good AEW aircraft.